I saw this film when it came out in 1966. I was a teenager at the time and found it quite intriguing. There are some minutes that have been cut in this copy from the original film which effects the empathy that you may have for the lead actor.

I had heard about this classic for years. I finally took it in for the soundtrack with Herbie Hancock and the Yardbirds. The story line is intriguing, where a photographer accidentally photographs a murder. The 'purpose' of the film is to show-off an emrging swinging side of London in the Sixities. The old and new ways clash. The protagonist is a jerk, which allows him to re-imagine his world artistically, demonstrated most appropriately in the orgasmic photoshoot scene depicted on the DVD cover. While the new ways of living are shown, there is no sense of soul behind the actors. Their motivations are unknown, so consequently the dialogue drags. The dialogues is vvvveeeeerrrryyy sssllllooowwww. In fact, I was sorely tempted to speed the film up a notch because the actors were taking so long to say their lines. However their acting in giving the lines does not express any feeling. You just get the feel that the director is attempting to stretch out a half-hour story to a full theatre length film. He does partly manage that by adding inconsequential sub-plots, which are interesting visually, if not particularly contributive to the storyline. Ultimately, the film has an intriguing premise but is dated and slow.

I first watched this film 40 years ago and was looking for a snap shot of 60s Swinging London. I didn't find it. There is however a lot of artful emptiness. I wonder how much of this is due to the Italian Antonioni's outsider view of the less emotive Brits. Cheering war protesters in Op artish black and white, ride in cars though an equally colourless (and completely empty) modern cityscape. Bloodless Mod models descend open staircases And the pop/rock band Yardbirds play (as Monolith below also noted) to a comatose audience. This is a zombie version of the Swinging 60s.The male lead (obviously based on the real life Fashion photographer David Bailey) has an easy if shallow life shooting and sleeping with fashion models. Until one day he takes a picture in a park that may have witnessed a shooting of a different kind.__later addition: Regarding the Yardbirds; on recent release of an old 60s film of the Rolling Stones, A Guardian reader said that back then he was a Yardbird fan (apparently a proper guys band.) They always kept quiet when they were playing, and that screaming was for girls.

This film is NOT recommended if you cannot understand movies that don't have 200 fights, 310 car chases or hilarious jokes about sex and sport. It is a movie that can be read in many ways, extremely interesting; so, if Hollywood and Vegas are your favourite spots in the world, avoid it!

I agree with Monolith.

I sought out this '66 'art' film for its rare performance of The Yardbirds, (in front of a surprisingly comatose audience... stoned perhaps), playing "Stroll On" (the predecessor of "Train Kept A Rollin' "), during the period when Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck were both in the band. Beck destroys his guitar, possibly as an homage to Pete Townshend of The Who. As for the film - pointless rubbish, in my arrogant opinion. 'Mod' British chicks with fake eyelashes, annoying mimes, a bizarre murder (with a femme fatale - or not...?), and no substantial plot.

Blow-up, winner of Cannes Palm d’Or for best film of the year and one of Michelangelo Antonioni’s masterpieces, is one of those movies that you can discuss with others for hours, and come upon new ideas after each new viewing. Ten years after I saw it in downtown Chicago in one of those massive theaters, I read the Julio Cortazar short story, "Las babas del Diablo," in a Spanish class, one of the inspirational bases of the movie. Cortazer said that a photo is a false concoction of man and a distortion of reality. Reality is three-dimensional in space. Also, a photo is only a moment in time, whereas reality is in a continuum of time. A different concept Ebert came away with was a story of a man who wandered until he started doing something he deeply loved (photographic intensity), and then when his works were destroyed, he returned to a life of wandering. Scored by Herbie Hancock, but the music only plays from a radio or a band, and never as mere background. In 1981, Brian DePalma made Blow Out, which transformed the movie into a murder with audio and moving film instead of photography. Blow Out is more of a thrilling crime film than the Antonioni film.

This wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, it is far from being good. "I fast forwarded a lot but not all the way.”

This 1960s movie is most notable for its "look," portraying the styles of the mod, swinging 60s in London. A photographer takes some pictures of a couple in a park and, unbenownst to him, records a murder in progress. Later he is pursued by the young woman in the photos (a young Vanessa Redgrave) who is trying to get the photos (before he knows what they contain). The movie is less of a mystery and more artsy. The disc I watched had some problems, so I think I missed some parts. I would have liked to see the mystery angle pursued more.

YAWN. This is the sort of movie that gives art a bad name even among thoughtful persons. There is no serious character development. It is more like a set of male and female models treating 1960s London as their catwalk.